I don't understand how and why we have a military prison in Cuba to start with. We've had a trade embargo for decades. I've never actually gotten an explanation for how that makes any sense.

On top of that, here, we are at war, in two countries half way around the world. There are means of keeping them in prisons there (that torture incident should be set aside). Yet, we pick them up and fly them to Cuba.

We don't even know who these people are. They could be Ahkmed the local butcher as easily as a terrorist. Who made the decision to just round them up and send them away?

Again, doesn't make any sense. Come to think of it, it never really made sense why Bush 43 sent us to war to start with. Nice move, jerk.

Saborlas:Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

"The law also contains a troubling provision compelling the military to accommodate the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of all members of the armed forces without accounting for the effect an accommodation would have."

What was supposed to be a joyous occasion for the families of over 100 Gitmo detainees turned sour when they learned that the plane carrying the former prisoners of war crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. Only the crew survived.

"We are sadden by this event" said the President smiling because he was thinking about a recent Simpson episode where Bart and Homer accidentally exchanged bodies and no one noticed. "It is doubley sad because they didn't purchase flight insurance. Now, no one gets nuttin."

The DC-3 was considered dangerously overloaded with it's load of passengers, extra fuel and unloved Pet Rocks that had also been sent to Gitmo back in the 70's. Witnesses say the plane broke up right after the crew bailed. "Witnesses say the valiant crew jumped at the first sign of trouble" says Obama. "But witnesses can be wrong. They can also be audited by the IRS."

The President has requested a moment of silence for the victims. It will happen around 2 in the AM when everyone is pretty much asleep anyhow.

(Updated)Witnesses claim the crew did everything they could including re-enacting the scene from Hot Shots where Charlie Sheen tries to hold the plane together with his bare hands. "They were heroes. Heroes!" claims John "Please Don't Review My Schedule CR-13" Johnson.

Holocaust Agnostic:Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

Okay. I'll bite. What nation's flag were they fighting under, in clearly identifiable uniforms and with a clear hiarchy of command responsibility for their actions?

They're not POWs, they're Franc-Tieurs. The Geneva Convention is VERY clear what they have to do to qualify as a prisoner of war, and not as a saboteur/spy. Regardless of your personal feelings of the morality of the matter, the later can be summarily executed upon discovery, and it be completely legit according to the laws and customs of warfare.

That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.

BSABSVR:Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly. The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess. Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.

I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.

hubiestubert:We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty? Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...

But there is a solution, and that is to give them a trial. Even if it means you will have to let them go and give them generous amounts of compensation, it is still the only right thing to do. That is what justice is all about. If you cannot prove a case, or do not follow the right procedures, the suspects walks away free. Too bad, it will serve as a lesson for future generations to do it right.

So, give them a trial, let them walk, and then give the people responsible for this shameful travesty a trial as well and put them in prison instead.

Crotchrocket Slim:BSABSVR: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly. The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess. Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.

I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.

Obama is the commander in chief of the united states military and the prisoners are held in military custody. If Congress wont fund an official transfer he could just order the navy to dump them off in Florida and just tell the FBI when so they can decide whether to show up and arrest people or not.

BronyMedic:Considering the Geneva Convention was updated to offer some protection to ununiformed combatants in 1949 due to their treatment in WWII, I'd say it's a little more modern than that.

Meh, not by much. Sure, they were updated after WWII, but it is still written for nation-state warfare rather than the terrorist networks against which we're waging war nowadays. It wasn't the standing army of Afghanistan that razed the Twin Towers to the ground in a formally declared war against the United States.

sprawl15:BronyMedic: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.

Okay. I'll bite. What nation's flag were they fighting under, in clearly identifiable uniforms and with a clear hiarchy of command responsibility for their actions?

They're not POWs, they're Franc-Tieurs. The Geneva Convention is VERY clear what they have to do to qualify as a prisoner of war, and not as a saboteur/spy. Regardless of your personal feelings of the morality of the matter, the later can be summarily executed upon discovery, and it be completely legit according to the laws and customs of warfare.

That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.

JustFarkinAround:Holy crap... I cant believe anyone actually gives a flying fark about these sand coons in Gitmo. News Flash: constitutional rights dont exist for non-citizens. 98% of the detainees are ENEMY COMBATANTS, and they deserve to eat Big Bob's c0ck meat sandwich until they die.

By your logic, if a US soldier is captured on the field, you're OK if he (or she) is waterboarded, dragged around naked on a leash, and kept imprisoned for the rest of his or her life? What if the conflict takes place on US soil, and the captives may or may not be civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Look at all those R's in front of the YEA votes in both houses.Look at all those D's in front of the Nay votes in both houses.

Why, if I wasn't a patriot, I would say those Republicans are trying to straight-jacket the President to prevent him from seeing another of his campaign promises fulfilled. But that would be a terrible thing to do with a Defense spending authorization act. No one would be that politically motivated, would they? Nah.

And I thought it was those damn socialist Democrats that were hell bent on taking away rights from gun owners and other people who like to shoot fast, often and with fewer interruptions.

If you are going to play war with legalities that differentiate between legal and non-legal combatants then why the fark would you arrest illegal combatants? Should have shot the mother farkers...still can

By your logic, if a US soldier is captured on the field, you're OK if he (or she) is waterboarded, dragged around naked on a leash, and kept imprisoned for the rest of his or her life? What if the conflict takes place on US soil, and the captives may or may not be civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Hydra:sprawl15: That only works if they are considered not the main party to the conflict, which isn't true since the 9/11 AUMF exercises war powers (in al Qaeda's case) not on a nation, but upon groups.

Since they qualify under Article 4, Section 1 as POW's, Section 2 is irrelevant.

Prove it.

Wrong convention, moron. The argument is that Article 4, Section 2 defines certain requirements for disorganized forces to qualify as prisoners of war rather than Franc-Tieurs.

Saborlas:Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Saborlas:Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is the dumbest argument. Obama only wanted to close GITMO (he was just going to move it). He was NEVER and has NEVER been opposed to indefinite detention. He has had his DOJ back and argue for every power Bush granted himself and the same arguments that the Bush admin have used to block court challenges are being used and pushed forward by the Obama DOJ

Obama's record on transparency. civil liberties, etc is atrocious. the only difference is the SILENCE in the democratic party. all the tribalists bury their head in the sand when Obama does this because it doesn't jive with the concocted idea of " AWESOMEST PRESIDENT EVA"

hubiestubert:Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

HORSEshiat

we release them to become heroic symbols, good. we caused that we should be accountable for it and the downside. same with taking them to court. we pride our selves on being a nation of laws. we brag about it. we beat other countries up over not being it -- so now we just walk away when it isn't convenient? fark that.

obama can rot in hell for this along side bush, cheney, john yoo and some others. some talking head on MSNBC a little while ago was saying that obama better get his shiat together here or liberals will be just as culpable as conservatives for this cluster fark. ok they didn't phrase it like that.

Saborlas:Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

By the second post. Well done.

Having said that, I think it's absurd that if a politician changes his mind on something over the course of time we consider it flipflopping and hypocrisy of the highest order.

If someone you meet in real life changes their mind on something over the course of time, we call it "learning".

Thunderpipes:Fuggin Bizzy: russsssman: It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.

Let's not get carried away. Bush 43 was the worst president in my lifetime.

History will say differently. The new Normal after Obama is done is going to be a complete disaster. We can never recover fiscally either, we are to far gone. Democrats breed like rabbits, so it will never get better. Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed the country.

Hydra:The Jami Turman Fan Club: Thunderpipes: How are those people having their rights violated? Were they uniformed combatants? US citizens?

Don't understand the liberal outrage here. And why not just close it down? Obama can do that whenever he wants to.

Why does it matter if they're wearing a uniform? They're P.O.W.s either way.

It matters as they apply to the Geneva Convention (which was drawn up basically for 19th century-style warfare between nation-states with uniformed armies marching in straight lines meeting in meadows 30 yards apart then kneeling and shooting each other). This was always a favorite progressive/libertarian criticism of the Bush administration - that holding them in Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention because they were POWs when, in reality, they fail to meet the requirements to be classified formally as POWs under the treaty.

Art 27. Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war in sufficient quantities by the Detaining Power, which shall make allowance for the climate of the region where the prisoners are detained. Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war.

Whether you're wearing a uniform has no bearing on whether you're a prisoner of war. None. Zero. Never has.

It's a fiction created by Bush apologists for why these guys shouldn't be POWs.